[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Usage of RFC documentation for Javadoc

From: Mark Wielaard
Subject: Re: Usage of RFC documentation for Javadoc
Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2006 14:58:33 +0100


On Mon, 2005-12-05 at 12:16 +0100, Wolfgang Baer wrote:
> Mark Wielaard wrote:
> > Hi Wolfgang,
> [...]
> > Yes, you can use the text of that RFC for the documentation of the
> > classes. If you look into our LICENSE file you see that the same is
> > already done for org/ietf/jgss using RFC 2853.
> Good news for our documentation :-)
> > 
> > There are a couple of steps to follow when doing this.
> > 
> > - We need to inform FSF legal (licensing@) that we wish to incorporate
> >   such text. Can you give me the RFC numbers? Then I inform them and
> >   include the text from the RFC. (We need to double check since not all
> >   RFCs come with precisely the same permission text.)
> RFC 2910 IPP/1.1: Encoding and Transport
> RFC 2911 IPP/1.1: Model and Semantics
> RFC 3196 IPP/1.1: Implementor's Guide (not yet used for documentation)

Just for the record for people wondering why Wolfgang didn't add this
documentation yet. We informed FSF legal, but they did see a problem
with the legal notice on the RFC text. Eben Moglen will engage with IETF
for clarification of their license terms. But the GPLv3 launch has been
taking up all of his time. So we are waiting till after that (the
"launch party" is next week, but I expect things to be a bit busy after
that because I am sure there will be lots of comments and suggestions).

In the meantime, without disturbing existing documents or arrangements,
we should refrain from distributing /new/ material from RFC sources
without specific legal review.  



Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]